ADLI v. Omer Adli; and Safiye Fleener, Real Parties in Interest. (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court's oral ruling directing discovery on an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a counterclaim and subsequent order denying leave to amend the counterclaim.

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. To begin, although petitioner has provided a transcript of a hearing during which the district court orally directs the parties to conduct discovery regarding the anti-SLAPP motion, she has not supplied a copy of a written district court order memorializing such ruling. See Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that a written order signed and filed by the district court is essential to this court's review); see also NRAP 21(a)(4) (stating that it is the petitioner's obligation to provide an appendix that includes all records that may be essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition). In any event, as this court has explained, “extraordinary writs are generally not available to review discovery orders.” Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 167, 171, 252 P.3d 676, 678 (2011). While this rule is not absolute, see id., petitioner has not demonstrated any of the narrow grounds that may warrant writ relief. And as to both the district court's oral ruling directing discovery and subsequent order denying petitioner leave to amend her counterclaim, petitioner has not shown that an eventual appeal would not afford her a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. See NRS 34.170. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.